About your Search

20130117
20130125
STATION
CSPAN 5
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNNW 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
and the nation's debt. joining me now to debate those issues, chuck schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. welcome back as senator cruz to "meet the press." back to both of you. i want to start on the gun debate. because as i say, even before the second term is officially underway thissy is bait is well underway. here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish. universal background checks. he'd like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. an assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men
election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe biden's comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put y'all back in chains. that made my heart weep to see a sitting vice president playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. i think that's unfortunate. i don't think it has any place in politics. >> chuck hagel, you were very tepid on "meet the press" a couple of weeks ago. >> i was. >> now you've met with him, you're more comfortable, you'll support him? >> i am. >> what changed? >> i said on your show that i had real concerns. i spent 90 minutes with him. i asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. his answers were forth right. and they were answers that alayed my concerns. should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran? yes. i went further. i said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran? he said no. and i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you? he said yes. second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they
: actually, think about the demographic politics of the last election. what do all of the broad array of critics not just those ones but what do they have in common? aside from the obvious -- they're all white. they're all male. now, of course, not every white male thinks the same way that they do. but it is notable that this virulent anti-regulation bunch the folks who have been the first shakers not just rush limbaugh, but the folks in congress too they're made up of mostly that same demographic group. in fact, those demographics mirror the nra itself. the nra's board is 87% male and 93% white. the nra's wayne lapierrre keeps insisting his group is bipartisan but take a look at this. the overwhelming majority of congress members with an "a" rating from the nra are republicans. on the other end of the spectrum, the fs are almost entirely democrats. a little sliver of red there you can barely even see it. and of course, the funding follows accordingly. 97% of nra funds went to republican in the last election. but it seems like the nra is not only not representative of the full america
democrats in line. many of them are up for re-election in 2014. potentially vulnerable. montana senator max baucus responded to the senate in a statement, quote, before passing new laws, we need a debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directives from washington. joe manchin said, quote, i'm disappointed the president did not recommend the creation of a national commission on mass violence that i have proposed. a national commission can build the consensus we need for real action, backed not only by gun control advocates, mental health experts and entertainment industry executives but also by law-abiding gun owners. >>> the white house is worried that if this fight becomes too much about the assault weapons ban, and not enough about measures, which are more politically possible, they'll have a problem. they want to keep people focused on fights they can win. background checks, things like that. republicans have unsurprisingly responded negatively, including florida senator marco rubio. >> by the own admission of the white house, wh
is supposed to be for the people. it is not. we really don't elect the president no more. the electoral votes do. we don't have any say. we are the ones that just keep paying. we are paying more and more and more taxes all the time. so there's always some reason they've got to have more money. why don't they take some money out of their pockets for one year? let them learn to live like we do. they all live way above their means. does not take a half million dollars or zero million dollars a year to live.- -- it does not take a half million dollars or $1 million a year to live. host: we have members of congress coming in this morning and we will throw out your proposal to them to see what they think. on twitter -- here's a headline in the washington post. let's hear or twice house secretary jay carney hata said. [video clip] >> the bill still has to overcome concerns expressed by members of the house and senate before it can pass both chambers and reached the president's desk. if it does and it reaches his desk, he will not stand in the way of the bill becoming law. broadly speaking, i will po
in that regard in through the fire in the election. i think that's fair. the senate just simply has not. and it is discouraging. you know, it just takes 51 votes. that's all it takes over there. i actually heard commentators tell us, oh, no, it takes 60. it takes no such thing. it just takes 51 votes where the majority now has 55 and at one point had 59 and was unable to -- unwilling, i should say, get 51 where you got over 228 of our members do last year which was actually vote on a budget going into an election year. mr. chairman, i'm delighted to see legs like this. i do think there are legitimate constitutional questions. i think those we'll have a vigorous discussion about that in the next couple of days. i'm comforted by some of the precedence you cite, mr. at the end of the day, this is about getting us to do our jobs. there isn't a member up here that wouldn't tell you it really is our obligation to write a budget. again, our friends in the majority did not. i'm really happy to see the minority, they have chosen to do so. i think it's actually a very good thing. the minority, ge
and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in women's security that will be part of the report. secondly, improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. so both with regard to the election and women and girls. >> senator with r
fundamental responsibility of any elected official is to pass a budget. now when we took over in the house in four months, we passed the budget, many of you have said, was one of the toughest ones to come out of the house. higher vote than at any other time in the last decade. democrats said we are going to do political damage to you in the election. you know what? we were honest with the american public. where we currently stood and our budget wasn't about just today but tomorrow, but about securing medicare and building for a better future for your children. what's the history in the senate? last time they passed the budget, the ipad hadn't been introduced. we have had trillion dollar deficits every year. nobody would expect to be paid if they didn't do their job. no budget, no pay. if harry reid cannot pass a budget, they are fundamentally moving the responsibility why they should even be in the majority. to me, this is a turning point for this country, getting to the fundamentals of a planning for the future that this could be the mark of a great american comeback. >> good evening. yes
time as we approached an election. americans are still entitled to be told the truth. did you select embassador rice? >> i did not. although i have not had a chance to testify, i have seen the resulting debate. you are right. it was a terrorist attack. what caused it? that is what we did not know. we did not know what their motives were. after months of research, it was made clear the picture remains still complicated. i say that because in the unclassified, i " key questions surrounding the identity and motivation of the prepared -- of the perpetrators remains to be determined. i recommend all staff read the classified version, which goes into greater detail. i cannot speak to its. it goes into greater detail becausebut where a variety of pl causes and triggers afford it. and there's evidence the attacks were pre coordinated and not necessarily indicative of an extensive planning. i personally was not focused on talking points. i was focused on keeping our people say. as i said, i have a very serious threat environment in yemen. we have people getting over that wall at the cairo, do
government to election toss try to get in there and help them with security, because it was clear that that was going to be one of their highest needs once they finally got stabilized. so there were a number of meetings. and i personally, i went to libya in october of 2011. i spoke with the then leadership, i met with them in international settings. we sent teams out, both civilian and military experts to try to help them. until recently, while they were going through their transitions it was a very difficult conversation because they didn't have, you know, the authority they thought. but now we're beginning and we have a long list of ways that we're trying to help improve security in libya. >> for example the october 2011 meeting at that meeting did this issue come up with regards to the inability of the libyan government to protect our institutions. did that come up at all in that conversation? >> we obviously talked a great deal about the deteriorating threat environment in libya. one of the reasons we had our own people on the ground, and why we were looking to try to figure o
years ago they won the elections there. the military had to come in to take over the government to prevent them from assuming power. this phenomenon didn't happen overnight. it has been building in the arab world. rise of fundamentalist islam, the rise of radical politicized islam. we've seen its manifestation in a number of different ways including al qaeda. but it is broad and it's deep and the idea we can simply say as we've done the past four years the on terror is over, al qaeda is defeated, we don't have to worry about it, we can cut our defense budget without limit, we're seeing right now, right in front of us the danger of this kind of thinking. martha: what should we do? you know, if americans are still being held and this is a very fuzzy situation right now what should the reaction be? >> i think we need to get some clarity what's going on the ground but i think what it also shows you can't wait for this kind of event to happen before you plan in advance. i think we blindsided by the attack in benghazi, by the attacks on our other embassies. we should have plans in pla
to libya to observe the elections and at that time on july 7th he expressed to me his deep and grave concerns about security, particularly in benghazi. and he continued to communicate with the state department and i don't know who else was privy of those cables about the deep concern of security there and the need for additional assistance and i will argue with facts that after that event took place, after the fall of gadhafi, the, quote, soft footprint was partially, to some degree, responsible for the tragedy that took place. the american people and the families of these four brave americans still have not gotten the answers that they deserve. i hope that they will get them. >> well, senator, i understand your very strong feelings. you knew chris, you were a friend of chris. you were one of the staunch reporters in the efforts to dislodge gadhafi and try to give the libyan people a chance and we just have a disagreement. we have a disagreement about what did happen and when it happened with respect to explaining the sequence of events. we did get to talk to the ds agents when they
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)